it was designed not to do much. If you give five different nations the right to veto any action that the collective will of the global community wants to take, then you're guaranteeing that nothing will get done

Yeah, that can be so frustrating... if by some fluke the Security Council does unanimously agree on something should it be observed by everyone?

it was designed not to do much. If you give five different nations the right to veto any action that the collective will of the global community wants to take, then you're guaranteeing that nothing will get done

Yeah, that can be so frustrating... if by some fluke the Security Council does unanimously agree on something should it be observed by everyone?

km

Thats the whole point - they don't have the means to enforce it , so why anyone would observe it ?

Alternatively, if everyone observed it, there wouldn't be the need for any enforcement, n'est pas?

Of course, the chances of *everyone* agreeing to observe any single law is vanishingly small, hence the need for an effective enforcement mechanism ... which, as you point out, the UN currently lacks ...

Of course, the chances of *everyone* agreeing to observe any single law is vanishingly small, hence the need for an effective enforcement mechanism ... which, as you point out, the UN currently lacks ...

Not as I point out, no, as you pointed out, wrongly, because the enforcement mechanisms are all there as Milosevic found out. All it takes is for the nations to vote for collective military action for example or for a tribunal to put suspects on trial.

The question I asked is whether, once the SC unanimously decides on something whether all the nations have to observe it?

Killing someone without due process - like firing a rocket at someone praying in a mosque for example.

km

Thats called "collateral damage" I knew you were miss using the word summarily

Definition;

Quote:

collateral damage — Unintentional or incidental injury or damage to persons or objects that would not be lawful military targets in the circumstances ruling at the time. Such damage is not unlawful so long as it is not excessive in light of the overall military advantage anticipated from the attack. (Joint Publication 3-60)Intent is the key element in understanding the military definition as it relates to target selection and prosecution. Collateral damage is damage aside from that which was intended. Since the dawn of precision guided munitions, military "targeteers" and operations personnel have gone to great lengths to minimize collateral damage.

Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.

All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.